Abstract
This paper explores why respondents to a telephone public-opinion survey often give reasons for answering as they do, even though reason-giving is neither required nor encouraged and it is difficult to see the reasons as attempts to deal with disagreement. We find that respondents give reasons for the policy claims they make in their answers three times as frequently as they give reasons for value or factual claims, that their reasons tend to involve appeals to personal experience, and that they often talk about their thought processes, especially when the evidentiary stakes are high. We then explore several ways of explaining these findings. We suggest that one useful approach is to see the reason-giving in the survey interviews as deliberative, reflexive argumentation of the sort described as `critical thinking. We further suggest that the reason such argumentation is often conducted out loud in the interviews, rather than internally, is that it functions in the service of rhetorical ethos, in particular the need to display the fact that one is human, with human autonomy and agency. Doing this may be particularly important in contexts such as anonymous survey interviews in which people are at risk of being treated like machines.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Atkinson, J. M. and P. Drew: 1979, Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings, Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, NJ.
Bean, J. M. and B. Johnstone: 1994, ‘Workplace Reasons for Saying You're Sorry: Discourse Management and Apology in Telephone Interviews’, Discourse Processes 17, 59–81.
Benoit, W. L. and J. J. Lindsey: 1987, ‘Argument Fields and Forms of Argument’, in Natural Language Argumentation: Perspectives and Approaches, Conference on Argumentation, 1986, Foris, Providence.
Berelson, B.: 1952, Content Analysis in Communication Research, Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
Brenneis, D.: 1988, ‘Language and Disputing’, Annual Review of Anthropology 17, 221–237.
Briggs, C. L.: 1986, Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research, Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language, 1, Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK.
Briggs, C. L., ed.: 1996, Disorderly Discourse: Narrative, Conflict, and Inequality, Oxford University Press, New York.
Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson: 1987, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Dijkstra, W. and J. van der Zouwen (eds.): 1982, Response Behavior in the Survey Interview, Academic Press, New York.
Fisher, A.: 1988, The Logic of Real Arguments, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Fisher, W. R.: 1981, ‘Good Reasons: Fields and Genres’, in Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings of the 2nd Summer Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, 1981, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, VA, pp. 114–125.
Glaser, B. and A. Strauss: 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine, Chicago.
Goldman, A.: 1997, ‘Argumentation and Interpersonal Justification’, Argumentation 11, 155–164.
Goodwin, C. and M. H. Goodwin: 1990, ‘Interstitial argument’, in A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 85–117.
Goodwin, M. H.: 1983, ‘Aggravated Correction and Disagreement in Children's Conversation’, Journal of Pragmatics 7, 657–677.
Grice, H. P.: 1975, ‘Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantics’, Vol, 3, in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York, pp. 41–58.
Grimshaw, A.: 1990, Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H.: 1995, ‘Meeting Both Ends: Between Standardization and Recipient Design in Telephone Survey Interviews’, in P. ten Have and G. Psathas (eds.), Situated Order: Studies in the Social Organization of Talk and Embodied Activities, University Press of America, for the International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, Lanham, MD.
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H.: 2000, Interaction and the Standarized Survey Interview: The Living Questionnaire, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.
Jacobs, S. and S. Jackson: 1982, ‘Conversational Argument: A Discourse Analytic Approach’, in J. R. Cox and C. A. Willard (eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL, pp. 205–237.
Jacobs, S. and S. Jackson: 1989, ‘Building a Model of Conversational Argument’, in B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. J. O'Keefe and E. Wartella (eds.), Rethinking Communication, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 153–217.
Johnstone, B.: 1991, ‘Individual Style in an American Public-opinion Survey: Personal Performance and the Ideology of Referentiality’, Language in Society 20(4), 557–576.
Johnstone, B.: 1996, The Linguistic Individual: Self-expression in Language and Linguistic, Oxford University Press, New York.
Johnstone, B.: 2000, Qualitative Methods in Sociolinguistics, Oxford University Press, New York.
Johnstone, B.: forthcoming 2002, Discourse Analysis, Blackwell, Oxford; Malden, MA.
Johnstone, B., K. Ferrara and Judith Mattson Bean: 1992, ‘Gender, Politeness, and Discourse Management in Same-sex and Cross-sex Opinion-poll Interviews’, Journal of Pragmatics 18, 405–430.
Kaufer, D. and B. Butler: 1996, Rhetoric and the Arts of Design, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Maynard, D. W.: 1986, ‘The Development of Argumentative Skills Among Children’, Sociological Studies of Child Development 1, 233–258.
Mishler, E. G.: 1986, Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Rieke, R. D. and M. O. Sillars: 1997, Argumentation and the Decision-making Process, 4th, Longman, New York.
Rieke, R.: 1981, ‘Adult Reasons in Supplication: Nondebators vs. Debators, Nontraditional vs. Traditional’, in Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings of the 2nd Summer Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, pp. 579–594.
Schiffrin, D.: 1984, ‘Jewish Argument as Sociability’, Language in Society 13, 311–335.
Schiffrin, D.: 1985, ‘Everyday Argument: The Organization of Diversity in Talk’, in T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 3, Academic Press, London, pp. 35–46.
Schiffrin, D.: 1987, Discourse Markers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Schiffrin, D.: 1994, Approaches to Discourse, Blackwell, Oxford UK; Cambridge, USA.
Schwarz, R.: 1996, Cognition and Communication: Judgmental Biases, Research Methods, and the Logic of Conversation, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahway, NJ.
Sheldon, A.: 1993, ‘Pickle Fights: Gendered Talk in Preschool Disputes’, in D. Tannen (ed.), Gender and Conversational Interaction, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 83–109.
Siegel, H.: 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking and Education, Routledge, New York.
Ten Have, P.: 1999, Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide, Sage Publications, London.
van Eemeren, F. H., R. Grootendorst and F. S. Henkemans: 1996, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
van Eemeren, F. H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson and S. Jacobs: 1993, Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Willbrand, M. L.: 1981, ‘Child Reasons in Supplicatory Discourse: Rules to be Refined’, in Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings of the 2nd Summer Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, VA, pp. 595–608.
Wolfson, N.: 1976, ‘Speech Events and Natural Speech: Some Implications for Sociolinguistic Methodology’, Language in Society 5, 188–209.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cheng, M.S., Johnstone, B. Reasons for Reason-giving in a Public-Opinion Survey. Argumentation 16, 401–420 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021138703400
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021138703400